please who knows the bible phrase that states that
1.you can divorce based on adultery
2.u cannot remarry until one spouse dies

please 2 is the most important

thans as u contribute

seun pls put this on front page

i found it through google.com
romans 7 verses 2-3
thanks

@sexibabes
There's no bible phrase that states that you can divorce based on adultery. Its just a cute lie from the father of lies.

Image123:

@sexibabes
There's no bible phrase that states that you can divorce based on adultery. Its just a cute lie from the father of lies.

  Uhm wrong brotha.
Definition of Adultery: voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and someone other than his or her lawful spouse.

Matthew 5:32 NLT "But I say that a man who divorces his wife, unless she has been unfaithful, causes her to commit adultery. And anyone who marries a divorced woman also commits adultery."

Jesus said it is permitted to divorce your wife or husband if they have been unfaithful to you.

@JeSoul and co.
If you look at the original, or perhaps versions like the KJV, you see that Jesus said except for 'fornication', not except for adultery/unfaithful. Yet He used the two words in that one sentence, These are the kinds of ways the devil has slipped through into the church while men slept. WATCH.

its Jesoul and Tonye-t 

KJV: And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

  Pray tell, why would Jesus use the word "fornication" while talking about a married man/woman? Is it perhaps because Jesus did not use the actual word "fornication"? would "fornication" in the context of married people not essentially be "adultery"?

The bible was not written in KJV you know. And even if you still wish to disagree, then please do tell us what Jesus meant was okay as a reason to divorce - cos obviously he was putting forth a condition to be able to divorce one's spouse.

Jesoul, I said 'versions'. The kjv is just an easily accessible version, that's why I mentioned it specifically. You could check the original greek. Jesus differentiating between the two words 'fornication' and 'adultery' takes us to the divorce scenario in Deuteronomy22:13-21. That's the 'excuseable' condition for divorce, fornication not adultery. It's going to take some sizeable meekness to agree with this anyway.

Image123:

Jesoul, I said 'versions'. The kjv is just an easily accessible version, that's why I mentioned it specifically. You could check the original greek. Jesus differentiating between the two words 'fornication' and 'adultery' takes us to the divorce scenario in Deuteronomy22:13-21. That's the 'excuseable' condition for divorce, fornication not adultery. It's going to take some sizeable meekness to agree with this anyway.

People now realise how devilish it is to hide ancient manuscripts and church documents (something which the catholic church is said to be guilty of) considering that its those ancient manuscripts and documents that would help sort out issues like "fornication" and "adultery".

1. Did the Messiah use the greek versions or did any of the disciples use the greek versions . . .

2. Was the greek version the original or a translation itself . . .

3. What versions of the scripture did the disciples use and in what languages did they write their letters . . .

For example one of the reasons against the use of the Apochrphya books was that according to historical records, it was never quoted by the Messiah Himself (hence another reason to realise that catholics are heretics for using it). Nothwithstanding that the apochrphya actually contradicts a lot of the bible and that it supports a lot of the idolatory of the catholics (something vehemently opposed by the Creator Himself.)

By the way people, please do not refer to the current people calling themselves[b] isrealis[/b] as descendants of ancient isrealites cus history and the bible itself shows that most of them claiming to be jews are not even related to the ancient isrealites, hence we cannot reference them in this debacle of trying to discover the truth about the ancient scriptures.

By the way, NO, i am not advocating that people should learn Hebrew or Aramaic or something like that: All i am saying is that it helps to have the original manuscripts so that english language translations can be crosschecked wen and where it might not be properly translated.

Let's remember that King James himself was not a saint , hence i would not be suprised if the translators of the original KJV self-censored themselves in the original translation of the KJV . . . so as to avoid being beheaded  .

1. Yes i consider the KJV to be quite complete but not perfect.
2. I also consider the RNKJV to be likewise complete but not also perfect.

Hence the reality is that translations are bound to have issues, hence the need to have a reference copy of the ancient manuscripts and documents to crosscheck in places of contention.

No2Atheism:

People now realise how devilish it is to hide ancient manuscripts and church documents (something which the catholic church is said to be guilty of) considering that its those ancient manuscripts and documents that would help sort out issues like "fornication" and "adultery".

1. Did the Messiah use the greek versions or did any of the disciples use the greek versions . . .

2. Was the greek version the original or a translation itself . . .

3. What versions of the scripture did the disciples use and in what languages did they write their letters . . .

For example one of the reasons against the use of the Apochrphya books was that according to historical records, it was never quoted by the Messiah Himself (hence another reason to realise that catholics are heretics for using it). Nothwithstanding that the apochrphya actually contradicts a lot of the bible and that it supports a lot of the idolatory of the catholics (something vehemently opposed by the Creator Himself.)

By the way people, please do not refer to the current people calling themselves[b] isrealis[/b] as descendants of ancient isrealites cus history and the bible itself shows that most of them claiming to be jews are not even related to the ancient isrealites, hence we cannot reference them in this debacle of trying to discover the truth about the ancient scriptures.

By the way, NO, i am not advocating that people should learn Hebrew or Aramaic or something like that: All i am saying is that it helps to have the original manuscripts so that english language translations can be crosschecked wen and where it might not be properly translated.

Let's remember that King James himself was not a saint , hence i would not be suprised if the translators of the original KJV self-censored themselves in the original translation of the KJV . . . so as to avoid being beheaded .

1. Yes i consider the KJV to be quite complete but not perfect.
2. I also consider the RNKJV to be likewise complete but not also perfect.

Hence the reality is that translations are bound to have issues, hence the need to have a reference copy of the ancient manuscripts and documents to crosscheck in places of contention.

I PROPOSE THAT NO2ATHEISM SHOULD RETRANSLATE THE BIBLE SO THAT IT CAN ACCURATELY DESCIBE JESUS AS A BLACK MAN.

ABOUT THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS ,HOW COME THE RCC TOOK THOSE DOCUMENTS FROM THE ORUIGINAL CHRISTIANS WHERE THEY ALL SLEEPING OR IST THAT GOD JUST WHEN TO SLEEP.

COME TO THINK OF IT THE FACT THAT ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPS COULD NOT BE FOUND MIGHT BE THAT CATHOLICS HAVE DOCTORED THE BIBLE ,WHY DONT YOU TRY THE KORAN

@No2atheism
i believe we have all that is needed and necessary for the Christian journey. It's not my intention to argue which bible version is good/bad. That will derail the thread.
Just to correct though, most of the new testament was written in greek. The books were primarily written to gentiles and jews in diaspora. The common language was greek, And the NT was written after the ascension.

Image123:

@No2atheism
i believe we have all that is needed and necessary for the Christian journey. It's not my intention to argue which bible version is good/bad. That will derail the thread.
Just to correct though, most of the new testament was written in greek. The books were primarily written to gentiles and jews in diaspora. The common language was greek, And the NT was written after the ascension.

Sorry, , am likewise trying to learn, am not trying to argue. I do not know anything o o o . I am likewise a student.

Yes New Testament was after the Messiah had already left the disciples. My statement about Apochrypha was in relation to the old testament, Also my questions was also in relation to the other books that bore the name of the other disciples:

Nevertheless i am still interested in knowing whether the letters by Paul and Peter and John and others were written in Greek or not.


The bottom line is that its good to have access to ancient manuscripts so that the translation contentions can be cross-checked. At least if the KJV was translated from something, does it not make sense for people to have access to that something.


I am not a kind of person that would tell you that KJV is the be all, far from it. Considering that i know that it is a translation and hence liable to human imperfections of translation.

For example: I am still yet to find an english translation of the yoruba phrase: Eku ile

So in essence my own statement was just that:

KJV is most authentic english translation that we have
RNKJV is even a better english translation because it essentially contains the same thing as the KJV with the only difference being that endeavours have been made to change the names to their original ancient isrealite forms


But in reality neither is the best cause at the end of the day, they are still translations by men into english, hence when there are issues of contentions such as the "fornication" or adultery debacle, it becomes good for one to have access to ancient manuscripts so as to be able to crosscheck what was translated and thus make a personal decision as to what the passage was really saying. Cus at the end of the day, salvation is a personal issue, hence fiat of majority carry the vote cannot be used.

Image123:

Jesoul, I said 'versions'. The kjv is just an easily accessible version, that's why I mentioned it specifically. You could check the original greek. Jesus differentiating between the two words 'fornication' and 'adultery' takes us to the divorce scenario in Deuteronomy22:13-21. That's the 'excuseable' condition for divorce, fornication not adultery. It's going to take some sizeable meekness to agree with this anyway.

  Deut 22:13
Marriage Violations
13 If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, "I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity," 15 then the girl's father and mother shall bring proof that she was a virgin to the town elders at the gate. 16 The girl's father will say to the elders, "I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17 Now he has slandered her and said, 'I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.' But here is the proof of my daughter's virginity." Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19 They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the girl's father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.
20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you. 

  So you are in essence saying Jesus was pointing us back to follow the very same Law he came to free us from? you're saying men can divorce their wives if they turn out to not be 'virgins'? you cannot be serious. Please tell me this isn't your view and that I am misunderstanding something. I didn't realize we were still following certain parts of the Law and not others.

I dont think there should be arguments between 'fornication' and 'adultery', BTW, both refer to unholy sexual acts, so why the big deal?

@Jesoul
really its not my view, it is Jesus'. Adultery is old testament as well, so don't give me that 'law law' story. But actually if you look closely, there's a slight difference here. In the Deuteronomy passage, it was a death penalty both for fornication or adultery. But here in say Matthew5, its a legally biblical divorce.
I don't enjoy speaking for divorce of any form and you're aware that God hates divorce. I'm pointing out the single exception/basis for divorce given in the new testament. Matthew 5:31 It has been said,. .
32. But I say unto you, That WHOSOEVER shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
This doesn't make it a RULE that divorce must take place because of fornication. It is a CAN, divorce can be, not must be. Where there's grace and true love, all part offences are forgiven. True love forgives and covers a load of sins, is not easily provoked and does not think evil. God's grace to you

@Jesoul
really its not my view, it is Jesus'. Adultery is old testament as well, so don't give me that 'law law' story. But actually if you look closely, there's a slight difference here. In the Deuteronomy passage, it was a death penalty both for fornication or adultery. But here in say Matthew5, its a legally biblical divorce.
I don't enjoy speaking for divorce of any form and you're aware that God hates divorce. I'm pointing out the single exception/basis for divorce given in the new testament. Matthew 5:31 It has been said,. .
32. But I say unto you, That WHOSOEVER shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
This doesn't make it a RULE that divorce must take place because of fornication. It is a CAN, divorce can be, not must be. Where there's grace and true love, all part offences are forgiven. True love forgives and covers a load of sins, is not easily provoked and does not think evil. God's grace to you

Image123:

@Jesoul
really its not my view, it is Jesus'. Adultery is old testament as well, so don't give me that 'law law' story.

No Image it wasn't Jesus' it is yours. Adultery is OT but the way we discipline and address it is very different, along with practically every other issue.

We are under the new covenant not the old, and nowhere are we told that it is still okay to follow some parts of the OT Law. Jesus came to free us from these very same rules you're insinuating He was pointing us back to. This is inconsistent.

But actually if you look closely, there's a slight difference here. In the Deuteronomy passage, it was a death penalty both for fornication or adultery. But here in say Matthew5, its a legally biblical divorce.

I understand your point here saying if Jesus was instituting a new law saying 'divorce instead of death', But please kindly let me ask again, is it your view that a man can divorce his wife if she turns out to not be a virgin? (cos this is what Deut 22 is teaching). I would really appreciate a yes or no. Thanks.

I don't enjoy speaking for divorce of any form and you're aware that God hates divorce. I'm pointing out the single exception/basis for divorce given in the new testament. Matthew 5:31 It has been said,. .
32. But I say unto you, That WHOSOEVER shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
This doesn't make it a RULE that divorce must take place because of fornication. It is a CAN, divorce can be, not must be. Where there's grace and true love, all part offences are forgiven. True love forgives and covers a load of sins, is not easily provoked and does not think evil. God's grace to you

Perhaps we are misunderstanding each other.
It is definitely not a rule that one must divorce their spouse because of adultery and I don't think I insinuated otherwise anywhere. If you're saying one can divorce their spouse if they've been unfaithful to you then we're on the same page.

Jesoul, can I also say fornication is OT but the way we discipline&address it is very different. See, I understand we've been consciously/subconsciously made to believe that adultery can lead to divorce, but Jesus did not say so.Like I said,it takes some meekness to subdue our pride of being right all along.
I'm not saying that Jesus is pointing us back anywhere, I'm saying He's refering to that scenario, a fornication situation not an adultery situation.

Image123:

Jesoul, can I also say fornication is OT but the way we discipline&address it is very different.

And I would agree 100% with you 

See, I understand we've been consciously/subconsciously made to believe that adultery can lead to divorce, but Jesus did not say so.Like I said,it takes some meekness to subdue our pride of being right all along.

  So true "meekness" would be submitting & accepting your point of view?

I'm not saying that Jesus is pointing us back anywhere, I'm saying He's refering to that scenario, a fornication situation not an adultery situation.

No stress brother, I understand your position and I will ask a 3rd time now, since you believe Jesus was refering to that scenario in Deut 22, is it your view that a man can divorce his wife if she turns out to not be a virgin? (cos this is what Deut 22 is teaching). I would really appreciate a yes or no. Thanks.

@jesoul

hello how are you? long time, hmm this topic is very touchy in Christianity. i will be adding my own view soon.

Mathew 19:9

19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

In the Jewish tradition a woman is betrothed to a man for one year before marriage and during that time she lives separately from her parents and gets herself prepared for the proper marriage. During this period she is not yet married but set aside for the man just like Mary and Joseph in the bible. So Jesus was saying that if she commits fornication during these period then the husband has a right to divorce her. But if that's not the reason for divorce then the man who leaves her and goes on to marry another woman commits adultery (Now the man is already married). Now for the woman like wise who ever marries a woman that was divorced for the wrong reason during this betrothed period commits adultery. So Jesus was saying in essence that you can only divorce your wife during the betroth period on the reason of fornication but when properly married and she commits adultery then the worst you can do is separation for a while from her but the bible encourages forgiveness and reconciliation between both party after a while.

Black_Revo:

@jesoul

hello how are you? long time, hmm this topic is very touchy in Christianity. i will be adding my own view soon.

  My brother I am well, dying to self daily that He might increase.  How are you?

Black_Revo:

Mathew 19:9

19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

In the Jewish tradition a woman is betrothed to a man for one year before marriage and during that time she lives separately from her parents and gets herself prepared for the proper marriage. During this period she is not yet married but set aside for the man just like Mary and Joseph in the bible. So Jesus was saying that if she commits fornication during these period then the husband has a right to divorce her. But if that's not the reason for divorce then the man who leaves her and goes on to marry another woman commits adultery (Now the man is already married). Now for the woman like wise who ever marries a woman that was divorced for the wrong reason during this betrothed period commits adultery. So Jesus was saying in essence that you can only divorce your wife during the betroth period on the reason of fornication but when properly married and she commits adultery then the worst you can do is separation for a while from her but the bible encourages forgiveness and reconciliation between both party after a while.

   Excellent explanation - _{perhaps this is what Image was trying to say?}. This is the situation Joseph found himself in when he found out Mary was pregnant and he wanted to divorce her. Now I understand where you're coming from, I'm certain that this is perhaps simply a problem stemming from exegesis.

  Here's a piece I culled from an article I read a while back which explains much better than I ever could the verses Matt 5:31-32 and 9:19:

Jesus did not recognize the validity of divorce and remarriage “for every cause” (KJV). He canceled the fairly broad permission to divorce that was given to Israel by Moses “because [their] hearts were hard” (vs. .

But Jesus did leave one exception — “except for marital unfaithfulness,” which again is the Greek word porneia. One whose spouse is unfaithful may divorce and remarry, for the unfaithfulness has destroyed the one-flesh marriage bond in the eyes of God.

This exception in Jesus’ final statement in this passage shows that divorce (and remarriage after divorce) by the innocent spouse are allowed under the circumstances of marital infidelity. Simply putting away one’s wife in no way can be construed as committing adultery. It is the putting away and remarrying that becomes adultery — unless the cause of the putting away was adultery already committed by the spouse being put away. In this latter case — that is, divorcing one’s spouse for that person’s adultery — the one-flesh relationship has been tragically violated, and the marriage bond is dissolved in this specific instance of biblical divorce. The innocent one is permitted (although certainly not obligated) to enter into another marriage.

In using the word porneia in the two passages quoted here from the book of Matthew, Jesus was speaking clearly in context about married people. The word in both passages can be understood correctly as “sexual unfaithfulness of married people,” rather than the modern connotation of single persons’ sexual immorality that might be misunderstood from the King James’s use of the word “fornication” here. The root word is still porneia, which speaks of a broad range of sexual immorality — single, married, or even incestuous.

The word porneia is used in two other New Testament phrases referring specifically to the unfaithfulness of married persons: (1) in 1 Corinthians 5:1 porneia is said to have been committed with another man’s “wife”; and (2) 1 Corinthians 10:8 refers to 23,000 Israelites committing “fornication” (KJV). It would be absurd to assume that all of them were unmarried.

  Now at this point I do realize we will probably still differ on how to interpret that verse (whether it be btw married people or betrothed or something in between) but that is okay. It is by far better anyways to forgive and strive for reconciliation rather than outright divorce -  a feat only possible by the grace and strength and healing of God.

JeSoul:

  My brother I am well, dying to self daily that He might increase.  How are you?

I am doing fine thanks and sorry for replying late, He will surely increase you beyond more than what you can imagine. Mathew 7:7

JeSoul:

 

   Excellent explanation - _{perhaps this is what Image was trying to say?}. This is the situation Joseph found himself in when he found out Mary was pregnant and he wanted to divorce her. Now I understand where you're coming from, I'm certain that this is perhaps simply a problem stemming from exegesis.

  Here's a piece I culled from an article I read a while back which explains much better than I ever could the verses Matt 5:31-32 and 9:19:

  Now at this point I do realize we will probably still differ on how to interpret that verse (whether it be btw married people or betrothed or something in between) but that is okay. It is by far better anyways to forgive and strive for reconciliation rather than outright divorce -  a feat only possible by the grace and strength and healing of God.

Thanks for this article and it really explained more about this issue. You see most churches/People in Nigeria uses the kJV which clearly states fornication therefore my point of view. But from the article then it is right to divorce a woman based on marital infidelity as it was just a problem of different interpretation from the various versions of the bible. The betrothed woman is already married to the man during these period and can rightly be called a wife to my understanding. At these stage it is clear and known to everyone in the community who her husband is going to be soon be it in a year or two. what will term as engagement or courtship can be substituted to this period because the woman lives alone and she learns everything that it takes to be a wife and a mother.

And you are very right by saying that feat is only possible by the grace of God because most men term such actions from a woman as an irreconcilable difference which is not the case in the other way round ( Pity to women anyway ). On the other hand when you said trying to forgive and reconcile, do you mean they both live under the same roof or separated as apostle Paul preached (The other party still willingly under the marriage vow)?.

Thanks once again for the article.

Black_Revo:

I am doing fine thanks and sorry for replying late, He will surely increase you beyond more than what you can imagine. Mathew 7:7

  Amen my brother and He will you.

Thanks for this article and it really explained more about this issue. You see most churches/People in Nigeria uses the kJV which clearly states fornication therefore my point of view. But from the article then it is right to divorce a woman based on marital infidelity as it was just a problem of different interpretation from the various versions of the bible. The betrothed woman is already married to the man during these period and can rightly be called a wife to my understanding. At these stage it is clear and known to everyone in the community who her husband is going to be soon be it in a year or two. what will term as engagement or courtship can be substituted to this period because the woman lives alone and she learns everything that it takes to be a wife and a mother.

  You're welcome jare no problem. Yeah your explanation was very good and it helped me see better where you were coming from. I think so many of the disagreements stem from how we each interpret the verses - and it doesn't help that there are several versions of the bible out there instead of one universally accepted text. The betrothed situation is very intresting and honestly I do see how the "fornication" word in that verse can be applied to fit that situation. I pray the Holy Spirit continues to give us insight into these matters especially when the physical texts that we have limit our understanding to a degree. 
 
  For example the bible doesn't list physical abuse as justification for a divorce but yet who would argue that a woman suffering under physical harm from her husband who has refused to change should remain in the marriage because the bible didn't specifically give that reason?

And you are very right by saying that feat is only possible by the grace of God because most men term such actions from a woman as an irreconcilable difference which is not the case in the other way round ( Pity to women anyway ). On the other hand when you said trying to forgive and reconcile, do you mean they both live under the same roof or separated as apostle Paul preached (The other party still willingly under the marriage vow)?.
Thanks once again for the article.

  You're so right. The culture we live in imposes double standards - but we will all be answerable to God on that last day.

While I haven't been in such a situation, I would say whatever it takes to fix the marriage - whether live together and work it out or seperate for a time and come back together. And I say this with some difficulty because I know myself lol forgiving someone has never been hard for me, but take him back? wow that would be close to impossible apart from a miraculous strong touch of God on my heart.

Posted by: sexibabes

please who knows the bible phrase that states that
1.you can divorce based on adultery
2.u cannot remarry until one spouse dies

please 2 is the most important

thans as u contribute

seun pls put this on front page

Wait oh do you want to kill your husband?

i was attracted to this thread by the above poster' name. nura, i am almost sure its nuratu, nurat, nurah? that should be a muslim, until i red the back and forth between the contributors, paying close attention to my dear JeSoul's elouence, along with others. obviously, i am not a christian, so i am putting the bible pundits to task here as below:

is the ability to walk away from marriage is made more difficult or easier by jesus than what moses left, considering that jesus warned that OT laws and its prophets must not be "abrogated"?

how can you be under the new law when jesus siad the old laws must be prserved otherwise the people who discard them and or encouraged them to be discarded shall be least in the kingdom of God?

what is the least in the kingdom og God? and what is the most in the kingdom of God? is the least a place of punishment because it is where those who o against jesus' recommendation shall receive due justice for not listening to jesus?

as to the potential wife, and the one year of bethronement; where shall she live for that 1 year, and who is protecting her from the vultures and preventing her from becoming community chest/property, etc?

who is responsible for her food and living expenses, housing or she will now have to fend for herself while the parents are relieved of it and the future husband is not responsible in this matter?

what prevent the future husband from not spending the night, etc with her, now that there is no one watching them from doing what birds and bees do?

why is that the burden of purity is put on the future bride, woman and the man, future groom is able to do whatever, sleep with another woman, since there is nothing that he must be a virgin and never been married, except that it alluded to the passage of a previous spouse?

from this one can conclude that the future husband may actually have a wife or wives, already, examples were father abraham isaac, jacob, etc? was this part of the marital law being abrogated by jesus, who said he came to make ure that the laws and thir prophets were etched in the memory completely without a jot missing?

no2atheism argued that the KJV, etc are complete but not perfect, so i ask you is there a perfect Bible, considering that it is claimed to be word of God, if you must continue to criticise the roman catholic church and its bible that is the "manuscript" for your protestant's bible?

is it not shameful that one is not shuttered at saying "God's word is not perfect, but complete"? shall we not propose therefore that it is clear that it is the word is not from the Perfect God since God is perfect in every sense, or that whoever says it is God's word is not telling the truth but only a wishful statement willfully or out of ignorance?

was greek the language that we need to find the the original manuscript, since nothing in the bible is revealed in greek, and jesus if the argument should completely nullifies 'greek", never for once preached outside his people's territory, qualifying his mission as such that he was not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (jacob's tribal families and tribes and nations from his children, both sons and daughters)?

and to all as you ponder on what i said in the many questions, above, you must realise that ficton may read very well, sound good to you, but it remains a fiction, nonetheless! jeSoul, i enjoy your pieces in many of the threads and i do save them for raining days ahead. thanks, babe. sorry yankee doddle dandy.